masterrig 1 #1 August 16, 2014 They eventually get caught-up with. http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read/article/the_associated_press-texas_perry_indicted_for_coercion_for_veto_threat-ap Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,396 #2 August 16, 2014 Fark: "Rick Perry indicted on one count of abuse of official capacity, coercion of a public servant, and ...oops. I forgot the third." "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #3 August 16, 2014 ryoder Fark: "Rick Perry indicted on one count of abuse of official capacity, coercion of a public servant, and ...oops. I forgot the third." Good one! You're on a roll! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 August 16, 2014 I suspect Lyndon's laughing in his grave right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #5 August 16, 2014 Compared to what he got away with in his career, I'm sure he is. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #6 August 16, 2014 By the title, I thought this was going to be about a shit-faced, drunken, "Boss Hogg"-like, abusive DA bullying and threatening the officers who appeared to be treating her with respect while doing their jobs (at least in the booking video I saw). As a point of interest, and ironically, the State's "Public Integrity Unit" operates out of her office. Instead it's about a guy who, when all is sorted out, may have been legally exercising his executive authority. I'm no Perry fan, but it really looks like he was giving her a gracious way out and she decided to go down swinging. Only useful purpose for this indictment is political ammo. Same jurisdiction that indicted Tom DeLay ...says it all, IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 August 16, 2014 A governor threatening a veto means corruption. Pass the Tylenol... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #8 August 16, 2014 Seems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury. He finally got caught. Sure, it seems a bit strange that elections aren't too far off and he wanted to run for president, again. Appears to me, his timing was off. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #9 August 16, 2014 lawrocketA governor threatening a veto means corruption. Pass the Tylenol... How about a president threatening to bypass Congress's Constitutional authority? puff, puff, give... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #10 August 16, 2014 lawrocketA governor threatening a veto means corruption. Pass the Tylenol...A governor using his veto to defund targeted offices based on political affiliation of the incumbent? A governor's office closing bridges/roads to communities based on the mayor not endorsing the governor's election campaign? Pass the Tylenol... Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #11 August 16, 2014 GeorgiaDon***A governor threatening a veto means corruption. Pass the Tylenol...A governor using his veto to defund targeted offices based on political affiliation of the incumbent? I wonder if the issue here is the "threat" ...and not the actual veto. I think the governor can legally veto anything for any reason. QuoteA governor's office closing bridges/roads to communities based on the mayor not endorsing the governor's election campaign? Pass the Tylenol... Don No argument from me if that's what actually happened. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #12 August 16, 2014 masterrigSeems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury..... Chuck You would think! But, as we've seen more than once from these folks......... ("inappropriately" is not necessarily "illegally".) If the DA had acted appropriately, she would not have been arrested, convicted and thrown in the hoosegow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #13 August 16, 2014 muff528***Seems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury..... Chuck You would think! But, as we've seen more than once from these folks......... ("inappropriately" is not necessarily "illegally".) If the DA had acted appropriately, she would not have been arrested, convicted and thrown in the hoosegow. ...and Perry would not have done what he did. Two wrongs don't make a right. She opened the door, in a round about way for him to show what he's really made of. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #14 August 16, 2014 muff528***Seems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury..... Chuck You would think! But, as we've seen more than once from these folks......... ("inappropriately" is not necessarily "illegally".) If the DA had acted appropriately, she would not have been arrested, convicted and thrown in the hoosegow.In all fairness, I would say it's not very hard to get an indictment from a grand jury. I'm content to say I really don't know if there is anything to the charges, and I'm happy to let the legal process play out. You might know more than I do, but all I have read is that the DA was arrested, not that she had been "convicted and thrown in the hoosegow". An arrest is unseemly, especially for a DA, but perhaps not sufficient to fire them. A DA who has been convicted of DUI would, it seems to me, lose all credibility to prosecute, and so should be required to relinquish their office. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 August 16, 2014 GeorgiaDon***A governor threatening a veto means corruption. Pass the Tylenol...A governor using his veto to defund targeted offices based on political affiliation of the incumbent? A governor exercising veto power. Governors are political by definition. As much as I think Perry is a dick and kook, he's doing what he has the authority to do. It is vetoing legislation. [Quote]A governor's office closing bridges/roads to communities based on the mayor not endorsing the governor's election campaign? Pass the Tylenol... Don Ah. This is failinng to carry out a legal duty. Let's say a governor gets a piece of legislation that establishes a spaceport. The governor threatens to veto it because it's outside of Austin. What's the big fucking deal? He can veto it. No, let's say he is governor and he is directed by an already enacted law to build a spaceport outside of Austin. And he doesn't do it. Regardless of his reasons, that's a problem. This is the difference between the two. I'm far more worried about executives ignoring the rules OR acting outside of the rules (as pointed out earlier, the President's threats to be a dictator scare the hell out of me). As it stands, a governor or president can veto bills for any reason. Or no reason. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #16 August 16, 2014 QuoteSeems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury. Ehhhhhh...... I don't see myself ever being comfortable with that logic.I agree with Georgia Don's comment above re: this. Grand Juries usually are rubber stamps of the prosecutors; only very, very rarely do they rebel and refuse to return a requested indictment. New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler once remarked that prosecutors have so much control over grand juries that they could indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to. So definitely not kosher. LOL, I crack myself up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #17 August 16, 2014 GeorgiaDon******Seems to me that if Perry was acting appropriately, he would not have been indicted by a grand jury..... Chuck You would think! But, as we've seen more than once from these folks......... ("inappropriately" is not necessarily "illegally".) If the DA had acted appropriately, she would not have been arrested, convicted and thrown in the hoosegow.In all fairness, I would say it's not very hard to get an indictment from a grand jury. I'm content to say I really don't know if there is anything to the charges, and I'm happy to let the legal process play out. You might know more than I do, but all I have read is that the DA was arrested, not that she had been "convicted and thrown in the hoosegow". An arrest is unseemly, especially for a DA, but perhaps not sufficient to fire them. A DA who has been convicted of DUI would, it seems to me, lose all credibility to prosecute, and so should be required to relinquish their office. Don https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF9WGKnhXdE I stand corrected. She plead guilty and was sentenced to 45 days in the pokey and lost her license for 180 days. Upgraded to "Class A Misdemeanor" because she blew .23 which is a little over the .15 threshold for the more serious charges. Don't know if she served the entire time. I think the pokey is for misdemeanors and the hoosegow is for felonies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #18 August 16, 2014 QuoteAs it stands, a governor or president can veto bills for any reason. Or no reason. The idea that just because an official has the power to take certain actions it falls outside the realm of all other ethical restrictions is absurd. Hypothetical: A state construction contract is awarded. Governor has the power to veto the funding for it and threatens to do so unless the firm with the contract gives him a substantial 'campaign contribution'. Has wrongdoing occurred?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 August 16, 2014 jakeeQuoteAs it stands, a governor or president can veto bills for any reason. Or no reason. The idea that just because an official has the power to take certain actions it falls outside the realm of all other ethical restrictions is absurd. Hypothetical: A state construction contract is awarded. Governor has the power to veto the funding for it and threatens to do so unless the firm with the contract gives him a substantial 'campaign contribution'. Has wrongdoing occurred? Yes. That's called bribery. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #20 August 16, 2014 jakeeQuoteAs it stands, a governor or president can veto bills for any reason. Or no reason. The idea that just because an official has the power to take certain actions it falls outside the realm of all other ethical restrictions is absurd. Hypothetical: A state construction contract is awarded. Governor has the power to veto the funding for it and threatens to do so unless the firm with the contract gives him a substantial 'campaign contribution'. Has wrongdoing occurred? Interesting point. The Governor has veto power over passage of the bill for funding a project. But does he have power to determine (legally or ethically) who gets the contract after the bill is passed into law? Somehow, I doubt it. But, with respect to the Governor's "persuasive" powers, this is where illegal stuff might happen ...not at the legislative/signing level. (unless he's strong-arming or threatening legislators during the legislative process.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #21 August 16, 2014 QuoteYes. That's called bribery. So then the governor cannot veto for any reason, and it is possible that use or threat of veto to force an elected official to resign breaches other ethical or legal rules.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #22 August 16, 2014 QuoteInteresting point. The Governor has veto power over passage of the bill for funding a project. But does he have power to determine (legally or ethically) who gets the contract after the bill is passed into law? Somehow, I doubt it. But, with respect to the Governor's "persuasive" powers, this is where illegal stuff might happen ...not at the legislative/signing level. (unless he's strong-arming or threatening legislators during the legislative process.) It's not intended to be procedurally accurate, it's just a rough sketch of how two things that are individually legal can combine to be illegal.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 August 17, 2014 Okay. So I've seen a bit more of what the story is. It started with this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xxX-qhJTfkI# This is the person in charge of the Public Integrity Unit. Perry said she's got no business being the head of it and she should step down. She's having none of that. So he vetoed the funding of the PIU. Lehmberg then decided that to indict him is a great way of getting some leverage. So you've got an alcoholic DA (side issue - this woman needs some serious help with that) throwing the name of the sheriff around to booking officers and being belligerent in jail whom lots of people, including the governor, think should step down as the head of the unit that investigates public officials for illegal activity. She then retaliates by pushing charges to put Perry in prison for a century. Here's the text of Perry's veto: [Quote]Despite the otherwise good work the Public Integrity Unit’s employees, I cannot in good conscience support continued State funding for an office with statewide jurisdiction at a time when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public’s confidence. This unit is in no other way held accountable to state taxpayers, except through the State budgetary process. I therefore object to and disapprove of this appropriation. Who is the bully here? Seriously. I am far from a Perry supporter. But I think this DA is a fucking sociopath. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #24 August 17, 2014 I'm not arguing the case - In fact I'd agree that the DAs behaviour sounds far worse than Perry's and she probably should resign if there's no mechanism to fire her. I was just taking issue with you statement that a veto can't be unethical/illegal.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,061 #25 August 17, 2014 Hi rocket, Quotean alcoholic DA Do you have proof that she meets the definition of alcoholic? You, an attorney, of all people should not be slinging mud at her without proof of what she is/is not. I find your accusation appalling. JerryBaumchen PS) Have you ever defended anyone for DUI? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
